THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 14965, 27 August 1912, Page 4

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in tho following cases:—Stronach, Morris, amd Co. v. Joseph. Hore (Naseby), claim £3 6s 7d on goods supplied, _ with ccsts (10s) ; Gordon and Gotch v. S. 11. Watson (Wintcn), £4 16s, goods, with costs (10s) : Ar.derfon and Go. v. John Hurring (Blue Spur), Bs. poods, with costs (ss) ; 1).1.C. v. Irrvden Grieve (Wvndham), £4 16s, sroode. with costs (10.?) ; John M'DonaldV. William Clark, £l6 15s. rent due, with costs (£1 10s 6d) : Mollisons. Ltd. v. Charles Cornelius, £7> 15s 6d, goods, with costs (10s); Stronaeh, Morris, and Co. v. Archibald Clark (Maungatua), £5 9s Bd, balance duo on tale of a. cow, •with costs (25e ocl). Judgment Summons.—M'Farlane. and Peden v. Thomas Hacgerty, claim £1 13s 6d, being amount duo on a judgment summons.—Defendant did not appear, and an order was made directing him to pay the amount due, together with costs (ss), in default 48 hours' imprisonment. Breach of the Engineers' Award.—ln this esse Joseph Hollows, inspector of award*, claimed to recover from Schlaadt Bros., mechanical engineers, the sum of £lO, as a penalty for a breach of the Otago Engineers' award, in that the defendants employed four apprentices a.nd failed to notify the inspector of factories within one week that their period of probation had expired. —Mr P. Cooke, who appeared for tho defendant, admitted that a technical breach of the award had been committed, but it was merely ar- oversight, and when their attention had been called to the breach, the defendants had written a letter admitting it.—The inspector said that tha facte, were as staled by Mr Cooke.— A hue of 20s was imposed J. Weavers v. John Fopham. claim £34 2s on a. promissory note given to "Am. Milieu, and discounted by the plaintiff This case, was partly heard last Court- day, was resumed. Mr W. C. M'Grcgor .or plaintiff Mr Calkin for dciendunt.—Mr M'Grcaor called a ]wst office official, who submitted an exhibition of defendant* signature—Defendant admitted that that signature, was his. but again denied that the Fimature on the p n. «a« his.— armment was then heard on the point T-ised bv Mr Callan as to whether a. note on which the stamp was aiifc-datcd wa.- : admissible in evidence,—His "v" orship reserved judgment.